Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by medtech_expat, Jul 22, 2011.
There's nothing wrong with the length of those trousers. The hem, yes, but length no.
If you're standing up and someone can see your socks, you have a problem.
Quote:As far as I can figure the only problem I would have is your disapproval. I can live with that.
He's bending down. If he was upright there would be no issue.
At the neck...
Anyway you're clearly OK with some degree of the "high water" pants. I'd add at least an inch to those.
Also FWIW, I don't like the idea of judging clothes based on how they would look if you stood at attention. Judge them on how they look in natural situations.*
That "natural situation" is showing sock while standing and that's an issue for me regardless of whether it might change a quarter inch if he was doing a military salute.
*Yes, yes, if it needs to be said, you get your jackets and pants fitted when standing straight, obviously. But you don't go through life standing like that (unless you're a toolbag), and how things look when you're relaxed is just as important.
Anyone place an order recently? Just placed one for simply so curious how long wait will be
At least an inch? Maybe a centimeter.
Yeah. An inch is roughly the width of one's thumb, subject to not being foo. That would leave these much more in line with mainstream* business and/or proper casual dress for the last 30 years than the no-break style popular among a few SF bespoke high-fliers. *(well executed...)
Now that you live in Texas will you also start wearing cowboy boots with a suit? That's been mainstream in business for the last 30 years in Texas as well.
Nope - don't own any boots, and don't even like the look of boots like EG Galway or EG Shannon with anything but jeans.
I've seen a few suit+cowboy boots around here. Mostly older guys, less than 5% of sample.
Getting back to St Crispins, my RMCH charity shoe auction pair will be arriving @ Leathersoul in 2 weeks.
Isn't the problem with those pants the width at the bottom, not the length? They are so narrow that they cannot fall any lower over the shoe. Lengthening the pants would make them fold up more above the foot, but they would stop at the same place.
This is a certain stylistic choice. The narrow pants and shorter jacket are popular. The high riding above the shoe is part of that look. Designers cannot keep making the same clothes year in and year out. They would go out of business. So fashions must change. Each man gets to decide whether to conform to those changes, but the photo seems to be a good expression of this style.
That is one of the factors. I posit that at their current width, they are not long enough.
So you suggest that was should change the way we dress in order to keep designers in business? Pretty wild logic. Exxon doesn't drill for oil to keep rig operators in business.
I was not suggesting that anyone "should" do anything. It is a free country, people should dress how they please.
I was noting that some men will follow fashion trends, while others will not. The designers do their work for the former group, the latter are a lost cause for them.
As for those specific pants, it looks like they are breaking the only way they can, when they reach low enough that the width of the shoe exceeds the width of the pants. In this case, that happens near the top of the shoe. Whether that height is good or bad depends on personal preference. Not something that can be right or wrong. I assume the people who composed and published the photo think it conveys the look they were after (the alternative is that they don't know what they are doing, but I am going with the first option). It can conform to one or another style convention.
I think the trouser length conforms to a convention that says "wear your trousers shorter than has been popular in the past" but not to a convention that says "trousers should be longer and hang lower than that".
Free country. People should dress as they please. They need not share my tastes, or anyone else's.
awesome. you got the wholecut?
Separate names with a comma.